SORRY, SIMON: Flyers' Simon Gagne, falling over Penguins goalie Marc Andre Fleury during their Jan. 7 game, lost a goal because a TV producer purposely witheld the tape that would have overturned the call and was later suspended.AP

Aterribly under- publicized NHL replay rule scandal recently revealed itself, the kind that should give MLB, now that it’s messing with replay rules, reason to think a lot harder, if not twice.

During the Flyers’ 7-4 win in Pittsburgh on Jan. 7, the game was stopped to view replays that would determine whether Philadelphia’s Simon Gagne scored, a goal that would have given the Flyers a 6-3 lead in the second period.

With no conclusive video evidence, the original call — no goal — stood and the game resumed, thus all subsequent tape of that play could not be applied to reverse that call.

And then, too late, there it was! On the home team’s FSN Pittsburgh telecast appeared a tape of that same play, but one showing the visiting team actually had scored. Apparently, TV producer Lowell MacDonald, Jr., son of the former Penguins’ winger, purposely withheld that tape because after an investigation, MacDonald was suspended.

FSN Pittsburgh then released a statement: “There is nothing more important than the integrity of the game,” adding that the telling tape was not provided “in a timely fashion.” The Penguins issued a similar statement.

Why FSN bothered to present on TV the evidence that would create the suspicion that would lead to an investigation, a suspension and a scandal is not clear. If the Penguins’ TV crew subjugated replay rule evidence on behalf of Pittsburgh, why show it later, why show it at all?

Regardless, we should be pleased that such an episode was exposed. After all, there are more on the way.

How many times will it take for “bad news” replays to appear on, say, the Yankees-owned YES Network and/or the Mets-owned SNY — replays that cost the Yankees or Mets a few home runs (or provide their opponents some), and cost them a game or two — before a sotto-voce word is passed suggesting such replays don’t always have to be so aggressively pursued and presented, “Do they?”

Can MLB answer for every person in a TV truck it has now unilaterally charged with determining whether a home run was just hit? Can MLB vouch for the integrity of every TV crew member who, beyond MLB’s umpires, is now charged with helping determine the outcomes of games? Of course not.

And heaven help that TV crew if it’s too late presenting the tape that can help the Yankees, Mets or whatever side that crew is supposed to be on.

It can’t happen? Well, it happened the other day in Pittsburgh. And who knows for sure whether it happened before that — I would guess that it did — and how many times.

The moment the NHL’s replay rule was introduced forward-looking hockey folks began to think in terms of which team ownerships would expect their TV crews to, ahem, “see it their way” or risk the circumstances.

If a James Dolan fired a Marv Albert for too often noticing that the Knicks were being blown out, how would that kind of team/network owner respond to one of his TV producers being so “disloyal” as to cost his team a win? And why would what happened in Pittsburgh be different from what can happen — and almost certainly will happen — in MLB games?

Just one goal or home run can cost a team owner anything from a draft pick to the playoffs, and millions of dollars, including TV revenue. Some teams’ TV producers may not even have to be told what’s expected of them; a wink and a nod might be all that’s needed.

Bud Selig said this about MLB’s new replay rule, “The system will ensure that the proper call is made on home run balls.”

Oh, no it won’t. Whether we know right away, later in the week, or years down the road (when TV crew members no longer can suffer the consequences of telling such truths), MLB’s replay rule ensures no such thing. Not unless Selig can ensure that all team owners demand aggressive, objective pursuit of video evidence that can cost those owners a fortune.

Fat chance.

But it stands to reason that baseball, on Selig’s shortsighted watch, would be so eager to get something right that it would invite — no, beg for — scandal.

Marino doesn’t pass test

Just because CBS’s Dan Marino was a terrific quarterback with the Dolphins doesn’t mean he’s unable to confuse the game to a national audience. Sunday, after the Ravens beat the Patriots, he said, “Joe Flacco only 10 attempts for 34 yards passing and they win a playoff game in the NFL. That’s amazing!”

No it wasn’t. Not if one watched the game. The Ravens, on the road against a strong offensive team, cashed early turnovers and busted a long run to take a 24-0 lead. After that, there was no logical reason to pass much. It only made sense to run the ball and the clock.

One of the best postseason examples of winning the way the Ravens did could be found in the Super Bowl statistics of another Dolphins quarterback, Bob Griese. In Miami’s consecutive Super Bowl wins — Supes 7 and 8 — Griese threw 11 times in one, seven in the other for a total of 161 yards. There was no need to pass more than that.

On the other (throwing) hand, John Elway, quarterbacking consecutive losing Super Bowl teams — Supes 21 and 22 — threw a total of 75 times for 561 yards, but just because he had to. Why is that such a difficult concept for paid experts to grasp? Heck, on ESPN, such logically produced passing stats make anchors faint!